Laserfiche WebLink
kE t y ' a <br /> ti c E 3'7 FS-y ? c Y; y .! Cta777777 <br /> 77 <br /> tt <br /> t+ <br /> y i Yh ..c :LE <br /> . . .. 1 aa.. A . .. rv ,. ..a { S h , :n i' ty '.' y.E . ,4v...al ..1 J 5 . 1. ° ` L ✓ - S <br /> F <br /> iY 4. . rv:: w. b: . . ♦ ..!! . s ::d i, v. iYx b.a 4 = T` 4 <br /> a .^x.�#J n, ,: ':. �'Ar..a�.;f <br /> �,. ' .-".. . .. n . . ;tz, . .. � .�z ,;Ji <br /> Choosing Alternative 3 would allow the Board to study other development patterns , such as Rural <br /> Villages . Potentially , a pattern of rural villages would protect private property rights . provide relief <br /> for Mr. Clontz and other similarly situated property owners , preserve agriculture and open space , <br /> allow ranchettes , and reduce incompatibilities . Rural Villages can also reduce <br /> public services , ce the cost of providing <br /> P ces , and maintain the rural character and identity of a community . p ding <br /> On July 11 , 2000, the Board of County Commissioners , by a 5 to 0 vote , essentially chose <br /> Alternative 3 for Subject Property 1 . <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> Alternative 1 uses arbitrary criteria to provide relief for the owners of three tracts . This alternative <br /> does not address compatibility issues and is likely to create a domino effect of land use amendment <br /> applications from adjacent land owners . <br /> similar parcels similarly . For that reason. no domi <br /> Alternative 2 uses reasonable criteria and treats no <br /> effect is anticipated to be associated with this alternative . Several provisions of this alternative are <br /> in place to trutigate potential incompatibilities . Of the two alternatives that change the <br /> comprehensive plan , staff supports Alternative 2 . <br /> Alternative 3 recognizes that expanding the USA at this time is premature and that additional <br /> consideration of this issue can lead to a better, more permanent solution . Staff supports Alternative <br /> 3 . <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that <br /> the Board of County Commissioners choose Alternative 3 and not amend the Comprehensive Plan <br /> at this time but continue to study the issue of urban service area expansion . If, however, the Board <br /> of County Commissioners determines that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended, then staff <br /> recommends that the Board of County Commissioners <br /> chose <br /> to the T, Transitional Residential , land use designation . Alternative _ to redesignate ±892 acres <br /> ATTACHMENTS <br /> L Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application <br /> 2 . Detailed Concurrency Analysis <br /> 3 . Approved Minutes of the April 5 , 2001 , Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting <br /> 4 . Unapproved Minutes of the May 17 , 2001 , Professional Services Advisory Committee Meeting <br /> 5 . Transmittal Resolution <br /> JUNE 59 2001 6 a <br /> - 95 - <br /> V <br /> f <br />